IMHO,the reason you don't get replies to some of your questions is that they are too vague, and lack critical details and have no references. For example:
"1) In prusing all the documentation available, I have come across what appears to be "Directors" to the company, all related to Mr. Thompson. Can you please confirm that there is or is not a BOD in operation, and if so, who the members are? In past filings, directors are listed and appear to be "family memebers" of the CEO, but then they "disappeared" in current filings."
In which documents did you "come across what appears to be" "Directors" to the company?
What led you to believe that they were directors? Did the documents identify them as such or are you just making an inference that they are?(which is what your wording leads one to believe). If you are making an inference that they are, what is the basis for that inference and why aren't you telling it to us? [[IMHO it is important to know the basis for inferences in order to be able to judge whether the question even merits looking into.]]
How could you possibly expect someone to find out what you are talking about with such vague details and no reference?
The lack of references, the ambiguity whether something was said or inferred and the complete inability to even determine exactly what your concern is based on all, IMHO make it unreasonably difficult if not impossible to supply the kind of hard evidence you appear to be demanding.
If you really do want answers, supplying references and adequate details would, IMHO, go a long way toward getting them. If you aren't concerned enough about it to go to that little bit of trouble, is it reasonable to expect someone else to go to a lot more trouble because of what you left out?
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
